(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the parties, heard finally.
(2.) All these petitions assail the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dtd. 27/9/2024 passed by the Minister (Revenue and Forest Department) in Revision Application No.3019/10232/Pra.Kra.240/J-6, whereby the said revision application came to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, in RTS/337/2009 and RTS/338/2009 dtd. 5/5/2012, which, in turn, had affirmed the orders passed by the authorities below, and directed Tahasildar, Nashik, to prepare the revised partition chart / vatap takta to execute the partition decree in terms of the judgment of the High Court in FA No.129 of 1951 dtd. 12/10/1955, and further orders dtd. 2/7/2025 in Review Application No.3024/4072/Pr.K.416/J-6 and 9/7/2025 in Review Application No.3024/4073/Pr.K.416/J-6 whereby the review applications also came to be dismissed.
(3.) As the genesis of the petitions is in the proceedings to execute a partition decree and the Petitioners in all the writ petitions, except the Petitioner in Petition No. 10519 of 2025, claimed to be the purchasers of the portions of the suit properties from the parties to the partition suit or their successors-in-interest and identical questions of facts and law arise for determination, all the petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.